Science Junkie – September 11, 2011
I don’t recall where I read my title, but it essentially
captures what I have been getting at in these columns. Theoretically, both
science and the law recognize and depend on the centrality of evidence, and the
goal of both is to reach “true” or at least optimal decisions based on
verifiable evidence and reasoned argument.
But despite a few superficial similarities, science and the
law obviously represent very different approaches to evidence-based discovery.
Science mostly adheres to the ideal of basing its (provisional) conclusions on
reliable, verifiable, repeatable evidence. I insert the modifier, provisional,
because every scientific finding or theory is subject to refutation or revision
in the light of new, better evidence. Science is a work in progress, always
seeking more complete evidence, always developing more refined theoretical
models for improved prediction and control (i.e., technology). In science,
sound evidence – verified data – always reigns supreme. If a
hypothesis or even a longstanding theory is disconfirmed by new observational
or experimental evidence, then the hypothesis/theory must be revised or
discarded.
Primarily because of this commitment to the primacy of
evidence, science works – damn, does it ever produce results! Anyone who
wants to question the efficacy of scientific method has a huge mountain to
climb. It doesn’t take a Sherlock Holmes to see that science has given us
astounding knowledge, understanding, and technological progress – virtual
godlike powers by the standards of only a few hundred years ago. Imagine
discovering and reviving a preserved adult corpse from, say, the 16th century.
She would be stupefied. Virtually everything she saw would astonish her, exceed
her wildest imaginings. She would be a living testament to Sir Arthur Clarke’s
third law, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic.” One of her few experiences that might be somewhat familiar would be
other people, who wouldn’t be all that different from the folks she remembered.
Or would they?
Anyway, let’s not debate the awesome effectiveness of
science, which proves that reality is discoverable, predictable and, allowing
for a number of obvious limitations, controllable (though for both good and
ill). Is this fantastic success due to the greatness of individual scientists
who came up with profound, breakthrough insights by virtue of their genius?
I’ll argue that the answer is no. While there have been many brilliant
scientists who are justifiably honored, the profundity and brilliance reside in
the methods of science and not in the genius of individuals. After all, there
have been great geniuses in arts and letters, philosophy, politics, and maybe
even religion. And I don’t disparage their contributions, except to note that
they mainly influenced others rather than actually advancing our knowledge,
understanding and control of nature. Freud was a genius, but it is certainly
appropriate to question whether his speculative, unscientific “theory”
contributed to or detracted from our understanding of human nature and
behavior. And with regard to arts and letters it is worth noting that history
is traditionally part of the humanities; but to the extent that historical
accounts are based on verifiable data, it belongs with the sciences.
(Since I mentioned religion again, I’ll raise this question
once more: What do we understand about reality, including human nature, that
can be attributed to religion? I’m thinking that just about everything religion
tells us about human nature is either flat wrong or highly questionable. It
seems increasingly clear that the fundamental Christian tenet of free will is a
myth, that human behavior has natural causes, like all other natural phenomena.
Another myth is that we’re governed by a disembodied essence such as a self or
soul that influences our mind. It is becoming increasingly clear that the mind
is what the brain and nervous system do, nothing more. There’s no evidence for
a tiny, incorporeal homunculus named “Self” or “Soul” sitting at the control
panel of the mind.)
Anyway, most practicing scientists are members of a
community that is dedicated to expanding our knowledge, understanding,
prediction and (in the experimental sciences) control of the nature. (I started
to write “control of the natural world”; but what other world is there?) The
members of the community of scientists adhere to rules and practices grounded
in evidence that have a proven record of phenomenal success. Science is far
more than the body of knowledge taught in most schools. It is a method, a
rigorous discipline, a set of very high standards that always come down to
verifiable, repeatable evidence. Each branch of science has its own distinct
methods of observation, testing, and experimental controls; but they are all
doing essentially the same thing. And the individual scientist knows that she
must present data and analyses that meet those standards if she wants to
persuade her peers. Primarily, she must be willing to change her mind on the basis
of evidence.
So, finally, here’s the point: What scientists do does not
come naturally. Skeptical, critical, methodical, evidence-based thinking is not
part of our DNA. Evolution did not program us to withhold judgment until we had
collected sufficient reliable evidence to explain a natural phenomenon. It did
not program us to question our own hypotheses or the pronouncements of
prestigious authority figures. It did not provide us with a good sense of
probability, which now plays such a central role in the sciences.
Quite the contrary! We seem to be programmed to invent
explanations, to adopt group beliefs that “explain” everything and then use our
ingenuity to defend those beliefs come hell or high water. Back in the era of
evolutionary adaptation, the struggle for survival took place on an entirely
different playing field where utter ignorance was the norm. Now the game has
changed radically, and so must we, starting with how we think. The stakes are
obviously very high and they are now planetary rather than local and tribal. We
live in a world that has changed much faster than our evolved nature, and many
of us are still answering the call of Stone Age genes. I would argue that as
never before it is critical to get things right, to base our individual and
collective choices and decisions on the most accurate understanding of the
realities we’re dealing with. That’s where science comes in: it is the only way
we know of to get it right. Nothing less than our survival depends on
supporting science and rejecting pseudoscience and superstition. And as
individuals we need to cultivate habits of thought based on science and reason.
But back to lawyers, at least so I can justify the title of
this piece. They operate in a very different arena, one that feels far more
familiar and natural than the discipline of science. In litigation they make
use of evidence primarily to support the client’s cause, not as part of a
cooperative effort to advance our understanding of reality. A scientist who
cherry-picks data and spins evidence to create a favorable reception for his
hypothesis will not be honored by his peers. A lawyer who wins cases using
those techniques enhances his reputation. In other words, litigating is more
like salesmanship than like science. It is arguing for a predetermined position
rather than participating in a collective effort to expand knowledge and
understanding. I don’t say that to disparage honest lawyers, who provide a
necessary service. The point is that when it comes to our beliefs about the world
we operate like a lawyer steadfastly and cleverly defending a particular
position, not like a scientist willing to consider all the evidence and go
where it leads.
I’m not saying that scientists are more honorable people
than lawyers (although on average I think that’s probably the case). If
scientists are more honest, it has to be in large part because of the rules
they follow – rules enforced by the scientific community – and
because they value that community and share its goals. Of course there are scientists
who have sold out and have become mercenaries in the service of political and
commercial interests. The rogues who abetted the tobacco companies and the
anti-climate-change corporate interests come to mind. Then there are other
scientists who are so enamored of their theories they can’t accept the negative
verdict of their peers and decide to take their case directly to a less
skeptical public. A number of people in the field of paranormal research fit
this description.
I’ll wrap up somewhat gratuitously with one of my favorite
quotes. It comes from former Colorado governor Richard Lamm, who in 1992 looked
at the ratio of engineers to lawyers being trained in various nations, and
worried about the trend in the U.S.
“All we know about the new economic world tells us that
nations which train engineers will prevail over those which train lawyers. No
nation has ever sued its way to greatness.”
And no nation from this point forward will flourish without
a strong commitment to science and reason. Yet as I look at the irrational,
anti-science, ideological madness pervading the political and religious right
these days, I am increasingly fearful that we’re rapidly regressing in the
direction of theocratic fascism. Rick Perry? Michelle Bachmann? Sarah Palin? The
Tea Party? Creationism? Would you believe it?